Hi chairs, I support both. Thanks
On Tue, Sep 25, 2012 at 12:45 PM, Suresh Krishnan <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi all, > During the softwire WG meeting at IETF84 a series of questions* to > determine the preferred solution in the meeting room indicated that the > sense of the room was in favor of MAP-E as the basis for the proposed > standard stateless solution. There was also general agreement in the > room to continue working on MAP-T and 4rd as experimental/informational > specifications. After the meeting, there has also been some uncertainty > as to the order in which the different drafts would progress from the wg, > > This call is being initiated to confirm two things: > > a) whether there is WG consensus towards continuing working on MAP-T and > 4rd as experimental documents. > b) whether there is WG consensus that MAP-E should be progressed to > working group last call & IESG review before MAP-T and 4rd.** > > Please state whether or not you're in favor of each of these decisions > by replying to this email. If you are not in favor, please also > (re)state your objections in your response. > > The call will complete at midnight EDT on 2012-10-05. > > Regards > Suresh & Yong > > * Questions are available at > > http://www.ietf.org/proceedings/84/slides/slides-84-softwire-15.pdf > > ** Note that work on MAP-T and 4rd can proceed in parallel with MAP-E > and we are not aiming to freeze work on these drafts. They just will not > be progressed from the WG before MAP-E is progressed. This is to ensure > that the drafts do not end up competing for the available (finite) > review cycles. > _______________________________________________ > Softwires mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
